COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. MANORAMA SARABHAI (L.3) DT

PDF · subscribers
ITR/315/1992HC GujaratGJHC24015655199230 July 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.C.PATEL2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the reference stands disposed of unanswered. This decision is based on the fact that the matter was decided in favour of the assessee by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and a concession was made before the Tribunal. The Court also referenced a similar case, Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Leena Sarabhai (N.CH.), 221 ITR 520, where the High Court had left a similar question unanswered due to peculiar facts and circumstances. Therefore, following the precedent and the procedural history of the case, the Court declined to answer the referred question. No order as to costs was made.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax against Manorama Sarabhai (L.3) DT. The reference pertains to a decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core of the dispute, as indicated by the question referred, concerns whether there was a 'transf' (likely referring to a transfer) and consequently, taxable capital gains. The High Court notes that the matter was decided in favour of the assessee by lower authorities, including the Tribunal, partly due to a concession made before the Tribunal. The Court also refers to a related case, Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Leena Sarabhai (N.CH.), 221 ITR 520, where a similar issue, due to peculiar facts and circumstances, was left unanswered by the High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that there was no taxable capital gains? (Question of law and fact, concerning capital gains). The assessee's side argued that the matter was decided in their favour by the lower authorities, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. A concession was also made before the Tribunal. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, beyond the fact that they filed the reference. The High Court notes that in a related case, Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Leena Sarabhai (N.CH.), 221 ITR 520, the question was left unanswered due to peculiar facts and circumstances.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 315 of 1992

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?

-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Versus MANORAMA SARABHAI (L.3) DT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner MR RK PATEL for Respondent No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE C.K.THAKKER and MR.JUSTICE M.C.PATEL Date of decision: 30/07/98

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per C.K.Thakkar,J.):

The following question is referred for the opinion of this Court:-

"Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that there was no transf was no taxable capital gains?"

The matter was decided in favour of assessee in view of the earlier decision by the authorities, including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the concession made before the Tribunal. In fact, in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX v. LEENA SARABHAI (N.CH.), 221 ITR 520, when the matter reached this Court, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances, the question was left unanswered. In these circumstances, this reference also stands disposed of unanswered. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.

***

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →